Shattered Glass: Review - The Tragedy of Fake News
Billy Ray's 2003 Masterpiece Shattered Glass starring Hayden Christensen and Peter Sarsgaard is a brilliant movie about journalism and lies.
Shattered Glass (2003)
Director Billy Ray biographical film from 2003 on the scandal surrounding journalist Stephen Glass is not only a phenomenal film but a deeply prophetic piece in terms of anticipating the rise of misinformation in a deeply politicized climate wherein discerning truth has become obfuscated behind personal differences. Boasting a stacked cast which includes Hayden Christensen, Chloe Sevigny, Peter Sarsgaard, Steve Zahn, Rosario Dawson, Melanie Lynskey, and Hank Azaria this movie wonderfully balanced crafting interesting characters the viewer has an interest in following while at the same time conveying broader ideas about society and the state of news in the digital era.
Sensationalist journalism and the printing of mistruths is not a new phenomenon invented by the likes of Silicon Valley's greatest minds but rather something that has plagued human societies for far longer. For instance, the practice of so called "Yellow Journalism" whereby truth became secondary to the goal of selling newspapers by printing eye grabbing headlines, regardless of their validity, was common in the late 19th century in the United States and throughout the world. Through this lens the term of clickbait, whereby articles and other pieces of online content curate specific images and/or text to incentivize users to click on them, appears to be a continuation of past behaviour rather than an invention of the digital era. With the rise of populist American President Donald Trump, who has since been indicted on several criminal charges, and his catch phrase of "fake news" the discussion around what is fact and fiction in the media and print journalism has been brought to the forefront of popular discourse.
I took a class in University about how politics is discussed in the media and one of the main takeaways I took from the class was the monumental task that must be undertaken in order to definitively prove whether or not a news article or outlet in its entirety is biased. It is not as simple as flipping channels and discovering that two different stations are covering separate stories and crying hypocrisy. The flippant way in which society labels news outlets as leaning in one direction or the other and even going so far as to ignore entire news organizations so as to silo themselves off from a wealth of information is concerning and I enjoyed the way in which this movie highlighted how people's personal opinions about the source of information can determine whether or not they believe it regardless of the credibility of what the person is actually saying.
Hayden Christensen brilliantly portrayed Stephen Glass, a quirky journalist whose photolike memory and bipolar behaviour make him standout in the office while he still appears meek when forced to talk in front of them. His character claims to be focused on writing human stories whereby people can see themselves in it and thus better relate to his work as compared to someone focused solely on the details. These eccentricities made Glass a relatable character in that when something goes wrong he throws himself on his sword and sees tiny mistakes as fatal errors such that one feels inclined to forgive him so as to alleviate his needless suffering. However, as the film goes on and truths are revealed about Stephen Glass and his less than credible work these character traits are shown in a new light such that his groveling behaviour is seen as less of a genuine act and more a way of trying to buy favour and cover up his failings. There is a brilliant moment in the third act when Christensen begs his boss, played by Peter Sarsgaard, to drive him home since he claims to be fearful that if left to his own devices that he will harm himself. Having slowly chipped away at the facade of Christensen's character and the falsities he has peddled as fact Sarsgaard dismisses these comments from Christensen as nothing more than another lie in a string of mistruths that he has spun to buy the sympathy of his peers.
Peter Sarsgaard portrays Charles Lane who is both fascinating and incredibly nuanced as his character arc sees him go from first appearing to be the villain of the story only to later be shown as the hero. Early on he becomes ostracized in the office by his coworkers when he is hand picked to replace the deeply loved editor played by Hank Azaria. Not only do we see how this impacts him but we also come to see the inner struggle he had accepting the position as he knew the strife it would cause but he could not let the opportunity pass him by as he has a family to support and at the end of the day he has to put himself first above others. This kind of depth is surely lacking in most modern movies since it allowed the viewer to understand both sides of the coin in that we can see why those working at the office would be irked to see their favourite editor dismissed while at the same time sympathizing with the man who replaced him.
One moment that struck me in the film was the scene where Sarsgaard confronts Christensen in the middle of the office. Just prior Sarsgaard was seen talking on the phone with a rival publication imploring them to not print an article dispelling the story Christensen had wrote and villainizing him for it. Thus, the audience is aware that Sarsgaard does have Christensen's best interests in mind and is doing his best to protect him and yet when he comes to Christensen to question him as to why he is still lying to him he is too late in a sense in that Christensen has already run to his colleagues in the office to paint Sarsgaard's actions as being politically motivated. Specifically, Christensen claims that Sarsgaard is belittling his work and not supporting him for the sole purpose of ripping out those people in the office sympathetic to their former editor, Hank Azaria. The scene plays out brilliantly in that while the two men talk Christensen is still playing to his colleagues behind the window, shaking his head in disapproval as Sarsgaard speaks, as if to say that he is being wrongly persecuted.
Further proving the poor character of Stephen Glass is the scene where Christensen goes to his former editor and tries to bend his ear as to the ways in which his new boss is treating him unfairly for what he presumes are personal reasons and not based solely on the credibility of his work. Hank Azaria's character, who had earlier had some suspicion as to the true nature of Christensen's work, questions whether or not Sarsgaard has a point in that Christensen’s work has not been entirely above board. In seeing that his former boss does not support him Christensen is finally confronted by someone he thought was in his corner turning on him. It is the first brick to fall from the house of cards he has constructed. Azaria played this scene brilliantly as his character, who has always appeared as both genuine and sympathetic, still possesses those traits when he questions Christensen in that it comes across as less accusatorial and more a way of offering his friend a way out through admitting that he has lied.
One of the most fascinating things to me is the way in which this movie contemplates authority and what having it means. After Sarsgaard receives the promotion to be the boss of the news room he is still not seen as legitimate thus undermining his ability to make decisions. Even after Sarsgaard has definitive proof that Christensen has been spinning lies and he presents this to his colleagues they are hesitant to believe him, none more so than Chloe Sevigny who is romantically involved with Christensen's character.
The confrontation between Sarsgaard and Sevigny in the final moments of the film brilliantly demonstrates the limitations of Sarsgaard's authority and illuminates how Sevingy's personal bias is impeding her perception of reality. Immediately before this scene Sarsgaard's character reread all of Christensen's work and found it unconvicting which was conveyed through creative sound design which was chopped up in unison with Sarsgaard thumbing between articles and then completely cut out every time a magazine was thrown to the floor in a dismissive fashion as if to demonstrate Sarsgaard's disgust at ever having printed these facades. Even though he is convinced that Christensen is a liar and feels that he has the proof to demonstrate it Sevigny is unmoved as she is still holding onto the belief that Sarsgaard is politically motivated in saying these things demonstrating the walls people build around facts. Sarsgaard sees this and empathizes with her desire to believe Christensen such that he states that the news organization was so caught up in how entertaining the stories he was churning out were that they failed to properly vet them. This statement not only offers an indictment of this particular news outlet but in my opinion also sheds a light on the nature of how people perceive the news in that they often expose themselves to news stories which they want to believe are true rather than having an open mind to different facts and new information.
There is a terrifying quote, given a modern context, late in the film which struck me where a secretary posits to Sarsgaard that the printing of these fake stories could have been prevented had the magazine included pictures in them as they, at the time, were seen as impossible to spread lies with. As artificial intelligence has grown in strength and popularity we have already seen the damage it can cause and the speed with which it can spread misinformation. For example, the convincing picture above of what appears to be former President Donald Trump being arrested is nothing more than a computer generated image, further evidencing the heightened task of discerning what is real and not will be in the 21st century.
Director Billy Ray does an incredible job here of misleading the audience in that for much of the film it appears to be a retelling of events whereby Christensen's character is speaking to a classroom of students about the secrets of the trade in the field of journalism. However, as the film goes along and the audience discovers that these purported flashbacks are in fact set in the future they become disillusioned to the way in which Christensen discusses his job and the lofty standards he claims to hold himself up to in light of the wealth of lies they have see him spread.
The plot device of using these flashbacks reached a crescendo in the closing minutes of the film where it cut between Sarsgaard being serenaded in front of a room full of his colleagues, who now accept the merit of what he had been saying, while Christensen is shown to be be showered with applause in front of the classroom of students. There is a haunting shot that closes out this montage which vividly depicted the hollowness of the praise falling on Christensen's character in that the previously bellowing room of students is quickly erased to show Christensen standing alone in front of now empty classroom. Another great dichotomy is created between the first time we see Christensen hear the titles of his articles read back to him in front of the classroom where he cannot help but smile and not long after where he is confronted by Sarsgaard in a litigious meeting whereby he reads out the same list and Christensen is seen squirming in his seat with disgust as he now accepts the falsities he concocted.
The movie also has purposeful and thus compelling cinematography as exemplified in the last meeting between Peter and Hayden's characters in the office. Peter is shown with his back to the camera, uninhibited with anything between him and the camera, while Hayden is shown refracted between two sets of glass as if to convey the distorted nature of his character whose life is nothing but a facade.
Many have described a supposed fourth branch of government as the free and fair press whose responsibility it is to keep the other three branches of government in check. Shattered Glass is a masterpiece based on its incredible ability to shed a light on the innerworkings of this critical facet of democracies in the digital era where mistruth is becoming increasingly difficult to discern from fact based on personal proclivities and advances in technology. Additionally, the movie does a great job of shedding a light on how the perception of bias does not prove that it exists as it is often a reflection of the nature of the person drawing such a conclusion. This movie is well worth watching as it works both on a personal level, in terms of being a convincing thriller, while also being a fascinating look at the ways in which society has changed since the digitization of information and the continuation of human flaws in producing and discerning truth.
Here is the trailer for Shattered Glass: